JOSHI WADEWALE HADAPSAR,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

54F of the Act. The CIT(A) vide para 3.10 to 3.11 has deliberated upon the factual aspects of the issue, which are being referred, but not being reproduced for the sake of brevity. 21. The assessee having made a wrong claim in the return of income i.e. by way of claim of deduction under section 54 on account

MRS. VASUNDHARA SHAILESH JOSHI,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

54F of the Act. The CIT(A) vide para 3.10 to 3.11 has deliberated upon the factual aspects of the issue, which are being referred, but not being reproduced for the sake of brevity. 21. The assessee having made a wrong claim in the return of income i.e. by way of claim of deduction under section 54 on account

JOSHI WADEWALE SHEWALWADI,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

54F of the Act. The CIT(A) vide para 3.10 to 3.11 has deliberated upon the factual aspects of the issue, which are being referred, but not being reproduced for the sake of brevity. 21. The assessee having made a wrong claim in the return of income i.e. by way of claim of deduction under section 54 on account

JOSHI WADEWALE SHEWALWADI,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

54F of the Act. The CIT(A) vide para 3.10 to 3.11 has deliberated upon the factual aspects of the issue, which are being referred, but not being reproduced for the sake of brevity. 21. The assessee having made a wrong claim in the return of income i.e. by way of claim of deduction under section 54 on account

KARANSINGH KACHRUSINGH KAKAS (HUF),,AURANGABAD vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

reassessment proceedings disallowed assessee’s claim of exemption u/s. 54B and 54F on the ground that the assessee has failed to comply with the mandatory conditions as envisaged under the aforesaid respective sections for claiming exemption. Aggrieved against the assessment order dated 12-11-2014 passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147

RAGBIRSINGH MALIKSINGH RAJPAL,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1100/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007-08

section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law : 1. The AO erred in reopening the case and passing order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 holding that

TEJASHREE ATUL PATIL,PUNE vs. PR.CIT - 2, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

54F for the second house property purchased on 24.05.2015 3. In this regard, an opportunity of being heard s being provided to you on 01.03.2024 at 03.00 PM. You are requested to make your submissions along with documentary evidences in support of your contention." 5. Assessee duly responded to the show cause notices and furnished the information about the purchase

RAJA BASHUMIYA MANIYAR,LATUR vs. ITO, WARD-1, LATUR, LATUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is Allowed

reassessment proceeding\ninitiated U/Sec. 147 r.w.s.144 of the Act by the Ld.AO is without\njurisdiction and void ab initio as the impugned notice issued under\nsection 148 is time-barred as per the proviso to section 147 of the Act.\n2 The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming that the assessment order\npassed by the Ld.AO U/Sec 147 rw.s.144